VTL Tetrode/Triode

Interesting result on the outlets - are they separate dedicated lines too? I guess your 450's in tetrode were pulling too much from the wall to share nicely. My 185's probably don't - I have them plugged into the same Power Wedge Ultra PLC I use for all my gear combined, with its lone cord feeding from the single available outlet. I haven't minded, but I may find an improvement if I ever re-situate to allow plugging into multiple lines or outlets (then again, maybe not - hum can often become worse in such installations).

Freaky that you have the same preamp as me - how many guys could be running Levinson pre's into VTL's? Our slightly different impressions of the relative tonal balances between triode and tetrode could be because of our different speakers, and also because of different tube and cable choices. I've recently done some switching in the tube department, you can read about it on this archived thread.

Yes, the outlets are separate, dedicated lines @ 20 amperes each. It is funny we have the same preamps. My speakers are B&W 803 Nautilus, hooked up with Transparent super Bi-cable speaker wire. I also use Transparent super interconnects, and my digital source is Mark Levinson 390s. Good sounding system, very lively, I like it now (but it took me a while to get there)!

BTW, your thread is interesting, thanks!

Zaikesman, you description of the physical qualities of tetrode verses triode are exactly what i would say...only completely opposite. I agree with you where you say tetrode has a greater dynamic range and has more purity and naturalness. But i find triode to be more detailed, have a more focused images, tends to reveal more high end detail with a little less body, all characteristics you attribute to tetrode. Interesting.

I think I need to slightly amend a couple of the (mis)impressions I seem to have left from above.

Hgabert refers to agreeing with me that "with tetrode...the frequency spectrum is flatter". Yes, tetrode could be called 'flatter' in that it sounds more extended, both top and bottom, but I said above that triode sounds more neutrally-balanced to me through most of the audioband, including all of the midrange. To me, tetrode is less flat than triode here, which is where it counts most. Questions of ultimate tonal balance, however, are quite dependent on partnering gear and choice of input tube.

Piezo says he agrees with me that "tetrode...has more purity and naturalness". Actually (except for the part I just omitted about tetrode having greater dynamic range, which is true, and which he stipulates to), that is what I said about triode, not tetrode - which generally seems a bit less 'pure' and 'natural' than triode, for reasons I speculate some about above - and in that respect we really do agree.

Doh! I did indead mis quote you, but i do agree, as you noted that triode is more natural and pure. It appears that I forgot to add "triode" at the appropriate place.

As to our other observations being 180 out, that's strange because we both are apparently hearing the same things but in the opposite modes and have a similar overall impression of the two modes (ala triode being more natural). The question that arises is: are there system dependancies that are driving our observational differences or are we describing the same thing differently. If the latter it would seriously cause one to take all reviews with an even larger grain of salt due to the subjective listening impressions being overprinted with imprecisly defined descriptions. Just some philosophical head scratching.